turtledovefandomcom-20200216-history
Talk:Australia
Southern Victory Flag Cute:) Having the Federation Flag instead of the Blue Ensign as the national flag. Since the Canadian flag is different, it wouldn't surprise me, considering that the Federation Flag was a popular contender. Mr Nelg 11:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC) :If you have reason to think it invalid, by all means take it down. The person who put it up came up with a bunch of fan-fic nonsense anyway. This one thing seemed legit, but it needn't be. TR 05:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC) ::You know, I didn't even notice the difference. I'm not sure why; certainly you Commonwealthers would notice if someone were to replace a US flag with, say, that one that has the stripes in the canton and the stars-on-blue-field everywhere else, or the "Don't Tread On Me" snake. Turtle Fan 06:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC) :::No, I think I'll leave it there. It's a nice divergence from OTL, and like I said before, the Federation Flag was a strong contender for the national flag, so it's possible that it was picked over the blue ensign in TL-191. Mr Nelg 10:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC) ::::However you like it. I like AH's where little wrinkles of small decisions in history went the opposite way, to match the major decisions. Turtle Fan 01:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC) :::::Just on that note, as stupid as it sounds, the stars in the blue ensign form OTL might have looked like the stars in the canton from the US flag on this wiki (34 stars in a circle). And Becuase i suspect there would have been a huge wave of Anti-US sentiment in the British Empire like OTL's Anti-German Sentiment, maybe they would have chosen the federation flag over the blue ensign. Or maybe soemone thought it just looked good. Fw190 06:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Japanese Empire? When was this? TR 21:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC) :Oh, wait, never mind. TR 21:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC) Southern Victory Section I just did an edit to change a bizarrely written sentence about how after GWI Australia was "still on top." Reading through, though, I think almost the entire section is conjecture. I have no recollection of most of the references cited. And some of them make no sense. For instance, why worry about British subs operating out of Australia against US interests around Hawaii? Why would the Royal Navy have retreated back there after Pearl Harbor? They had so many better options which would require shorter trips to make contact with the USN: Hong Kong, Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak, Brunei, Singapore, New Guinea, and, as long as Japan was on their side, Taiwan, Okinawa, the Philippines, and of course Japan itself. I'm putting this in the clean-up category. No one will fix it, of course, because we all have an anti-Australian bias. Turtle Fan 02:08, February 9, 2010 (UTC) :Upon review, the section is correct. I did clean up the sentence re:retreat from the SIs. That came from a Carsten scene in AF, and I think he was exaggerating a bit in his mind. However, the rest of it is just fine. TR 04:53, February 9, 2010 (UTC) ::Counterintuitive, then. In fact one almost gets the feeling HT went out of his way to work it in. So much for his anti-Australian bias. Turtle Fan 05:17, February 9, 2010 (UTC) :::Well, he referenced Australia about five times in a series that went 6000+ pages.....TR 05:28, February 9, 2010 (UTC) I must ask, why Canadians under U.S. occupation, didn't emigrate to Australia, if they found Yankee oppression too intolerable? :Presumably the oppressive Yankees wouldn't let them. One rarely gives dissidents of a conquered province the opportunity to run off and live to fight another day. Though now that I think of it, surely there must be something to be said for getting the malcontents and rabble-rousers, the people most likely to start an insurrection, to remove themselves from the equation voluntarily. And shipping them off to Australia makes better sense than sending them to the CS or UK, because if they lobby Canberra to launch a war of liberation, Canberra will just giggle at the absurdity of the idea and go back to whatever it had been doing before. Turtle Fan 03:20, September 4, 2011 (UTC) Noninterference Since we've been chatting a bit about Star Trek on the Nicole Nicholls talk page, I sort of feel as though I should point out that Australia is often used in a similar fashion in Trek--as a country which maintained first total independence and then a great deal of autonomy long after the rest of Earth politically unified. For instance, in "Little Green Men," Australia's independent streak left it as the only Earth nation which Quark had ever heard of so he kept addressing his American captors as Australians. (I wanted to like that episode but it really was dumb.) Turtle Fan 18:04, March 14, 2010 (UTC) Australia in TWTPE Will HT continue with his anti-Australia bias in that series, or will Australia be given a chance to shine? Despite my phrasing, I am rather curious. Right now, Australia would probably have sent some troops to Europe as in OTL. It wasn't discussed, but that proves nothing. :Maybe. There were a bunch of references to how diverse the Allied army was, but almost everyone we encounter is British or French. There's Vaclav's unit and a few other Czech orphans. You heard so little from the Dutch, Belgians, and Luxembourgers even when their countries were in the fight, though I do feel like I remember an offhand comment about how a handful of them had continued to report to Allied command even though their governments had surrendered. Not a single Canadian, come to think of it; I'd expect to see them long before I saw any ANZACs. Turtle Fan 21:38, April 27, 2010 (UTC) ::Although I'm not following the series, from what I've read from this site, Italy is in the war? If so, then the ANZAC's are most likely in Egypt. Historically, that's where the 2nd AIF went to complete it's training, and only then it was only 1 and a half division's strong (6th & 7th Australian Division). In OTL the fall of France shocked the nation into action, filling out the the rest of the 7th division and creating another two divisions, (The 1st Armoured Div. was started in November of 1940, but wasn't ready until early July of '41.) ::In this Time Line, France never fell, but came damn close to. It might have the same effect, then again, it might not. It's Harry's story, therefore Harry's rules. You also have to remember during WW2, Australia had to start a lot of everything from scratch, so don't go expecting anything too spectacular from Australia until the final book. Mr Nelg With Japan going at the USSR, is Australia still likely to have a role in the Pacific? Or do we not have enough info to know/care? TR 19:26, April 27, 2010 (UTC) :Not enough info is a good bet in this race, and not enough interest is an even better one. Still, I suspect they're safe for now. Maybe in a few books Japan will wind up at war with everyone, in which case . . . they'd still be safe. No way in hell can they make it that far on an opening drive, even if they catch the Allies by surprise, not when they're already committed to TWO other fronts. They couldn't even do it when they had one. :If they take the UK by surprise, when it's heavily committed in Europe and the Atlantic and maybe in Africa, the ANZACs might be called upon to take on more of a leading role than in OTL in the defense of Britain's Southeast Asian colonies. I do find it likely that at some point Japan will at least have to go to war with the Netherlands to grab Indonesia, and the British won't tolerate that. Then again, with Netherlands having reached an agreement at gunpoint with Hitler, and with Japan a German cobelligerent against the USSR, Berlin might be willing to exert a little pressure on Tokyo's behalf to have the Dutch put Indonesian resources at Japan's disposal. The Brits might or might not care about that, but probably not enough to start a two-front war of their own. And if the Brits don't care about the USSR, the Aussies won't. Turtle Fan 21:38, April 27, 2010 (UTC) :That would really depend on what the war between the USSR and Japan is like? Is it full blown war? Or just another border skirmish? If it's full blown war, then the Japanese army isn't going to be able to go south with the Navy. If war dose spring up between the Allies and Japan the best you can expect is some kind of half-hearted Naval war (Considering the IJN has no troops to back it up with meaning all they can do are raids and strikes.) The IJN can talk about taking the Dutch East Indies all they like but if there's no troops to take them with then it's not worth the pain of going to war with England and France. :If it's just border skirmishes then there could be a strike south if the border clashes fail like they did OTL. But remember, that they'll have to go through Indochina first before getting to British territory. Mr Nelg ::It's a major war. Japan invaded Siberia and Kazakhstan in force; they're not fucking around with small forces padded out with Manchus. Turtle Fan 04:06, April 28, 2010 (UTC) :::Whoa! How on earth are the Russians going to deal with the Chi-ha? Their only hope is to steal some of those super-awsome tanks for themselves;) Mr Nelg ::::And even if they can, all will be lost if they can't find the secret factory in Manchukuo where the Japanese are mass-producing hydrogen bombs. But finding it will be the easy part; taking it down will be nearly impossible. Every man, woman, and child in China will risk their own life to protect it as a way of thanking Tokyo for its beneficent governance. Turtle Fan 00:09, May 5, 2010 (UTC) So I see you've made a fairly large edit, Nelg, and I'd like to respond to it . . . But I can't find it. I generally look for the most recent comments at the bottom of a section, but that's clearly not the case here. Did you put it up top? The lack of time stamps to your signature makes it very hard to pick out what the new comment might be without remembering what the page looked like before; and it's been so long that I do not so remember. Turtle Fan (talk) 05:08, February 25, 2013 (UTC) Sorry. I still don't know how to put in comments like you guys where it automaticlly put's in my name and the date and time. I'll just move what i put down here. :Four tildes. Turtle Fan (talk) 17:40, February 25, 2013 (UTC) :Ah! Thanks:)Mr Nelg (talk) 22:18, February 25, 2013 (UTC) Now that I think more about it, I believe Harry might copy and past OTL "Siege of Tobruk" into the siege of Singapore for Two Fronts. We do know that the Japanese haven't conquered Sumatra, and I could see a siege working so long as that island holds. Best case scenario will have the action of Singapore told through the eyes of Fujita. Worse case scenario tells the whole battle through news reports. Whatever he dose decide to do, I know it's not going to be great, not because Harry has an anti-Australia bias, but because the only way it could be great is by focusing on the action, and the action in this series is bland at best. I've said it before and I'll keep saying it till the Rapture. The only way you can make these sort of things fun is by following the Golden Rule: "It dosen't matter whether you Win or Lose, it's how you play the game." User:Mr Nelg :Hadn't thought of that, but it makes sense. It would at least suspend the regression to parallelism we've seen since the Big Switch proved to be a passing aberration. Turtle Fan (talk) 17:40, February 25, 2013 (UTC) :Another theory that I postulated was HT might try a Stalingrad analogue with Singapore. But thinking back on that, I'm not sure how you could pull that off. The Japanese would have to get onto the island and that would be a disaster for the British.Mr Nelg (talk) 22:18, February 25, 2013 (UTC) ::Yeah, I just can't see it. The geography really doesn't allow it. You could have the Japanese come down from Malaya, as in OTL, and then the Allies (somehow) retake Malaya and cut them off. Meanwhile the Brits continue to hold the forts on Sentosa and make reinforcement from the sea impossible, so the Jap army is stranded and has to fight to the death. But that's still not the same as Stalingrad. Turtle Fan (talk) 04:14, February 26, 2013 (UTC) A personal reason I won't find it enjoyable is that it's been FAR too long since Harry actually released anything involving Australia that I actually enjoyed. In fact the only story of Harry's that I've read that involved Australia that I enjoyed was Les Mortes d'Arthur. Everything from Worldwar till now that has involved Australia I haven't enjoyed, because it hasn't been fun, or it's been too small for me to care about. The point I'm laboriously trying to reach here is that reality will always disappoint when compared to the things we can imagine, and after 19 years with nothing to enjoy, no matter how hard Harry tries, what ever he dose produce will never live up to the anticipation of having waited so long.Mr Nelg :According to this page, Australia's role in LMdA was just "They were there, in an amalgamated form." I don't remember more than that. My only real memory of that story is feeling under the weather when I read it in Departures and drinking a glass of ice water, hoping hydrstion would help. I had a vague impression that all that ice was appropriate for the theme. Turtle Fan (talk) 17:40, February 25, 2013 (UTC) :Heh. I hope you weren't out for too long. The reason I liked it was not because of the subject matter, but rather what he dose with it. Australia's role in LMdA was small, but I still enjoyed it compared to DOI. ::I really don't remember much about how sick I was at that point, but I recovered in the end, and all's well that ends well. By the later stories in Departures I'd really lost patience with HT's short form offerings, and being laid up in bed gave me the incentive to plow through and be done with it. In those days I was usually too stubborn to stop reading a book once I'd started it, no matter how little I enjoyed it. ::As for HT's execution of LMdA, I don't remember that, either. Just the premise, and by "premise" I mainly mean "setting." Turtle Fan (talk) 04:14, February 26, 2013 (UTC) :But anyway, like I've said before and even Harry has stressed. This is NOT a history lesson; It's entertainment using history. HFR is the best example of Harry pulling off the impossible for the sake of entertainment. TWTPE is another example of pulling off the impossible for entertainments sake, but it continuously flummoxes me how Harry understands this rule, yet is unable to put it into practice. Looking back over all four books in the series, the answer is “Laziness.” Harry could easily distract his audience with action scenes to make us forget the impossibility of it all, but like I said before, the action is bland, or all the action happens OFF SCREEN.Mr Nelg (talk) 22:18, February 25, 2013 (UTC) ::Even the action that THE ENTIRE BOOK IS NAMED AFTER! I found HW tedious drudgery, but W&E did manage to catch my interest as it went on, and TBS really captured my imagination. Then the somewhat misnamed CdE came along and really left me disappointed, with lowered expectations. Sad; for a little while there this series looked like it could have been one of the great ones. Turtle Fan (talk) 04:14, February 26, 2013 (UTC) ::Much like I said with Super Volcano, the problem is that there is too much focus on the characters. It almost feels like Harry is afraid anything else will take the focus of them, like he's so gosh darn jubilant with his creations that he keeps trying to shove them in our faces. Characters should exist to tell the story, but in this case, it feels like the story is there to show us the characters. The problem is, that good characters can't carry a book, let alone a series, all by themselves. You need 3 major categories in order for this sort of thing to work. Action, Characters, and Exploration. Exploration is one category you can't do very well in Alternate Wars. Mind you, it works well in Alternate History, but in AW, you can only explore the 'World Situation.' And that happens slowly in wars. The one way Harry could get around this problem is by focusing on the 'Action,' and so long as you get 2 of the 3 categories nailed, your audience will forgive you for missing that 3rd. ::In the end, it all comes down to the simple English phrase of 'Suspension of Disbelief.' Here's a test to see if you've succeeded. If your audience is nit-picking; you have. If their complaining; you've failed. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the series will be okay. Not great, not bad. Just okay. The sad thing is, we won't be able to see this fact until the series is over. TWTPE is a lot like assembling a puzzle of a picture. We can't appreciate it's full beauty until all the pieces are in place.Mr Nelg (talk) 06:45, March 2, 2013 (UTC) :: Doctor Who Tangent Really crawling out on a limb here, but BBC America has been showing old-time Doctor Who specials, and last night it was Tomb of the Cybermen. One of the commentators mentioned that, as popular as it is now, it was even more so before it was rediscovered, back when telesnaps and sound recordings meant it mostly existed in the imagination. Apparently there was a bit of a disappointed backlash when it resurfaced. So yes, imagining something we can't have does very easily outpace reality when we have it. Hell, look at our own experiences with CdE, or TG back in the day. :That reminds me of my disapoint with the first ever story invloding the Daleks. I was excited about seeing it, and after the story was over, I thought to myself, "Wow, that was really, really... Average." Mind you, I thought the "Dalek Invasion Of Earth" was great.Mr Nelg (talk) 00:11, February 26, 2013 (UTC) ::There's one moment I really loved in the first Dalek story: when the Doctor, Susan, and Ian have a chance to escape while Barbara's in prison, and the Doctor urges them to take it. Susan shames him into staying. Like Ian stopping him from killing the cave man in the previous story, it shows the First Doctor is a dark character and not to be trusted; he sees human life, all life except his and Susan's, as insignificant. From the end of "Edge of Destruction" onward that changes, but he can still snap back to it without warning when the situation calls for it, right up through his regeneration. I find it utterly fascinating how, long before they had worked out the whole back story of stealing the TARDIS and fleeing Gallifrey, Hartnell put in a performance that can be almost perfectly grafted into later canon, as an intermediate figure between a typical haughty Time Lord and the common personality traits which have characterized all the subsequent Doctors. ::Other than that I found the first Dalek story decent. Seven episodes was way, way more than its subject matter required, and it certainly does get bogged down for it. And of course there's a certain historical interest value in seeing how the Daleks were initially conceived, though the far better Genesis of the Daleks--my favorite story from the show's original run--more or less completely rebooted them, albeit in a way that was consistent with a few of the older elements. :::These mirror my reaction as well: interesting artifact, but not a great story, and really long. (Mr. TR was even less impressed, but she really hates the Daleks.) TR (talk) 04:49, February 26, 2013 (UTC) ::::Since last we've talked Doctor Who on this site I've finally achieved my goal of seeing every episode from every era, and I have to say . . . There really aren't all that many good Dalek episodes. In the First Doctor's era I can accept that they were experimenting with the species. Master Plan and the two Second Doctor stories seem like they could have been great, but they only have four surviving episodes among them, out of a combined total of twenty-six, so that makes it much, much harder to enjoy them. Genesis was a masterpiece; it allowed Tom Baker to put his stamp on the role early on, gave us an unforgettable foil to the Doctor in Davros, and rebooted the Daleks conceptually into a far greater menace even as it paid proper homage to what had come before by setting up a prequel to the first Dalek story. Unfortunately, there wasn't another decent Dalek story made in the series' original run, so that reboot was all in vain, and Davros, who'd served his purpose, kept coming back to life and attempting hare-brained schemes to regain control of his creations. Like Star Trek's Borg Queen, he transformed an alien menace terrifying in its profound differences from humanity into the predictable extension of a familiar and all too understandable megalomaniacal will. As with the three Third Doctor stories, it felt like everyone involved--writers, producers, actors--felt they were under some obligation to do Dalek stories from time to time, and put in a minimum of effort so they'd be able to X off a box on some checklist of things you're supposed to do if you're involved in the Doctor Who franchise for any length of time. The fact that every episode from the Troughton years on is titled "Whatever of the Daleks" does add to that impression, and it's hardly encouraging that Moffett seems to have resurrected that tradition. ::::In the twenty-first century, I really love "Dalek;" seeing a clip of the Ninth Doctor confronting the Dalek in the basement cell for the first time, pouring all that raw emotion out, is what first convinced me to give DW a try. (And I recently learned that Eccleston defied the director by playing it that way; he'd been told to read the lines in a light, mocking tone, like Tom Baker would have done.) The rest of the Davies era Dalek appearances didn't make too great an impression on me (except "Evolution of the Daleks," which drove me crazy by taking the intriguing concept of a reform-minded Dalek asking the Doctor to help him force his race to mend its ways and wasting it on a story that sucks ass). The things I remember about the Dalek season finales don't directly involve the Daleks at all--the Ninth Doctor finding peace at last right before regenerating in "The Parting of Ways;" Mickey and Jacky reluctantly accepting that Rose has changed and doesn't belong in their world anymore, from the same story; the encounter with all the former companions, recurring guest stars, and spinoff characters prompting the Doctor to accept that they've all built lives of their own and that he'd only get in the way if he tried to force himself back in, in "Journey's End," leading into the lonely, melancholy tone that dominated Tennant's final episodes. As for "Doomsday," it was cool seeing them confront the Cybermen, but cool is all it was, and it felt like a publicity stunt rather than the inevitable confrontation they would have built up to way back in the Troughton years if Terry Nation hadn't forced the studio to call the whole thing off. ::::In the Smith era we've seen "Victory of the Daleks," which was enjoyable if not overly impressive, and "Asylum of the Daleks," in which, once again, the presence of Daleks was at best incidental to the whole thing. The only way that episode can have lasting implications is as a source of clues as to why the new companion apparently keeps reincarnating all over the place; and while the reveal that she'd already been Dalekized was handled well, I really can't stand this business of little nanobots that can turn anyone and anything into a Dalek--worse still, an undercover Dalek; if they must have mooks who are not Daleks themselves, that's got to be the worst way to handle it, and they've found some pretty bad ways over the years (Robomen, Ogrons, Pig Slaves). ::::Over the years the writing staff has drifted back and forth between the two poles of "Ugh, time to do another story about Daleks. Well, let's get this over with" and "Ohmygawd, Daleks! Let's fill the episode up with Daleks! This is going to be so awesome!" Neither approach serves them well at all, and both lead to writing staffs investing a minimum of effort into writing the scripts. Thus we et a lot of stories involving unnecessarily Byzantine plots, which regularly fall in on themselves and leave the Daleks planning utterly illogical schemes. (A reality bomb? Rassilon's plan involved pulling the Time Lords through to another, unaffected dimension; the Daleks seemed to have no such idea in place to ensure their own survival.) The rules keep changing about how intelligent they are, how emotional their thought patterns are, and especially how dedicated they are to their own purity: One day you've got to self-destruct if you've even been touched by a human, the next you're turning humans into Daleks wholesale, then you're shooting Daleks who have the slightest taint of . . . whatever, then you fill the air with nanobots who will indiscriminately Dalekize any organic matter they touch. They brag about how badass they are and everyone's scared shitless whenever they show up, but they hardly ever escape with their lives at the end of the episode, and they never actually win. Many times the Doctor destroys them completely and utterly, but one short year later they're back as good as new. Many other times the Doctor's about to destroy them completely and utterly, but then his conscience troubles him and he decides he can't go through with it; and of course he always regrets it the next time they threaten something he cares about, but don't expect that to stop him from sparing them yet again. Whether he performs a genocide against them or not is pretty unpredictable and has nothing to do with his established personality for that incarnation: the pacifistic Seventh Doctor had no qualms at all about destroying them; the battle-scarred, rabidly Dalek-hating Ninth Doctor was ready to sit back and let them overrun Earth itself when the Dalek Emperor shamed him by calling him a killer. ::::There are deep problems with them, no doubt. I don't hate them myself, but I can certainly see where Mrs TR might. Turtle Fan (talk) 00:08, February 27, 2013 (UTC) ::The Dalek Invasion of Earth didn't do much for me, despite its arguably greater historical significance as the point where the Doctor first took on the mantle of someone who actively protected "little people" from the stuff of nightmares, in defiance of the Time Lords' "only to observe, never to interfere" dogma. Again, it dragged, and at that point the show really wasn't up to showing an adventure of such scope, though a few serials later they did a fine job of the even more ambitious "The Chase" (which I'd name as my favorite Hartnell story on probably three days out of four). Susan's departure at the end was fairly emotional but doesn't live up to the hype; the Doctor's speech is so stiff and formal it just doesn't feel convincing. I know it wasn't really in the First Doctor's character to look vulnerable and transparent at such a point, as Tom Baker did with Liz Sladen, or Peter Davison did with Janet Fielding, and certainly not as Jon Pertwee did with Katy Manning. (Naturally none of that could have been in the same league as David Tennant's tear-jerkers with Billie Piper or Catherine Tate, or Matt Smith's with Karen Gillan.) But when Ian and Barbara left at the end of The Chase, Hartnell had the Doctor return to a grumpy kind of "Fine, leave me!" attitude that was obviously thin cover for the fact that he really was hurt that his friends would choose something else over them. That was convincing and natural. "One day, I shall come back. Yes, I shall come back. . . . " was not. ::And by the way, they really need to revisit that one of these days. The Doctor never did go back, but the Daleks did, and the raw guilt and pain that he must feel because of it needs to be processed. The Time Lords of Gallifrey were assholes, and while one would certainly expect the Doctor to distort his memories of home now that they're gone--he admitted he'd done as much to Wilf in The End of Time--their loss should pale in comparison beside the grief he feels over Susan. Again referring to The End of Time, I usually mentally substitute "Carol Ann Ford" for "Claire Bloom" when the credits roll, because it makes all the sense in the world that Susan would be the one working on the Doctor's behalf behind the Time Lock even at the cost of her own life; infinitely more sense than the idea that some strange woman would come out of nowhere to take on that role, especially in an episode where everything was some sort of continuity nod or other. Even the other characters who come out of nowhere, like that weird rich black guy who's squatting in the Torchwood Tower, the cactus-people, and the coven of witches who pull magic out of their asses to resurrect the Master for no reason. ::But what Susan really deserves is something like the Master got to reintroduce him to the new series. The Doctor's all gloomy thinking back on the granddaughter he didn't save during the war, then they land somewhere and there's an apparently human character played by Carol Ann Ford, but the Doctor doesn't recognize her. She becomes an ally in the battle against whatever threat they're facing that week, and at the good guys' final moment of victory, she's mortally wounded. But then she opens a locket or something, turns back into a Time Lord, and regenerates into a much younger actress. Maybe even one who joins the cast full time. Like a much, much better version of The Doctor's Daughter--which makes me realize that the power of imagination is once again outpacing reality. ::One other thing about the first two Dalek stories: I've seen the two non-canon Peter Cushing movies based on those two stories. I really don't see why they bothered with those at all, but I did find the one based on The Dalek Invasion of Earth held together quite well--better even than the original: faster paced, better action, better humor; the changes they made to the script were for the most part improvements. The earlier one, based on the first Dalek story, made hardly any changes to the script; so it was all of the slow paced tedium with none of the historical significance to canon or meaningful character development. I watched it all in one sitting and it felt like it was three or four hours long. Turtle Fan (talk) 04:14, February 26, 2013 (UTC) Tasmania in Worldwar This new mystery person (unfamiliar with our format, and I can sympathise, having been in the same boat 10 months ago) has made some strange statements regarding Tasmania which I don't think are correct. This is just the single most problematic statement from the new mystery person.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 19:14, June 5, 2016 (UTC) :See Talk:British Empire for further notes. But according to the map, Tasmania is under Race control. (Unless there is something in the text that says otherwise.) TR (talk) 19:19, June 5, 2016 (UTC)